Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.blasphemy,alt.catastrophism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.folklore.urban,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.postmodern,alt.religion.christian,alt.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.lang,sci.skeptic,talk.abortion,talk.atheism,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!iglou!news
From: gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman)
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dp1-006.ppp.iglou.com
Message-ID: <Dup2Do.2sH@iglou.com>
Sender: news@iglou.com (News Administrator)
Reply-To: gnewman@iglou.com
Organization: Wormsby Works
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
References: <glen.835649550@heurikon.com> <31D2EF75.17371095@sector7.com> <4r0gv6$rld@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> <4r10n5$6ck@news.corpcomm.net> <31D82D43.7597@eznets.canton.oh.us> <4rsoib$gpr@news.corpcomm.net> <31eaa739.242863268@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <4sgehr$1hg@atlas.xylogics.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:45:16 GMT
Lines: 30
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.lang:57580 sci.skeptic:189956

On 16 Jul 1996 16:04:11 GMT, jking@alnitak.xylogics.com (Jack
King) wrote:

>Kevin D. Quitt (kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:

>: No, he wasn't right.  If the second law debunks evolution, then it also
>: debunks the growth of a single cell into a human being.  You can't allow one
>: without the other.

>Poor analogy.  The cell has a very well organized mechanism which is
>"designed" to perform a task.

 Design is immaterial. If it violates Second Law, it can't
happpen. Designed, undesigned, or quasi-designed.

 There are NO exceptions in Thermodynamics. If there were, we'd
just 'design' perpetual motion machines.

>  Negative entropy is the result.  The
>crucial question is given an almost infinately high entropic state
>some 16 billion years ago, how did this highly organized "state
>machine" come about?  Your going to claim that it "self-assembled".
>That's fine.  But before you criticize those who see a very complex
>design speculating on a designer, take an equally sceptical look at
>the concept of cosmic dust bootstrapping itself into us.

 I have. It seems like that's what happened.



